As an added note: just to protect them (all three of them) from malicious code (read: virus, etc), I kindly asked that any time they want to install an app, they should please let me first check whether the app in question is "safe".

They all either have/had laptops or desktops: so this was a no-brainer. Also, since they all use Macs, I can actually limit installations to "AppStore". So, normally, if they find something in the Apple AppStore (OS X), they ask me to check if it's ok or if there are any known issues with the app in question, and then they can install (or I remote-install). In case of non-AppStore-apps, I ask them tobe patient until I check the app and then they can install. It actually works quite easily.

Of course, nowadays, my daughter does everything by herself - but when she's unsure about any security-issues with an app she wants to install and can't find enough information about it on the internet, she still emails or texts me...

I saw a comment somewhere in the comments that it is also very important that the children can always come to you if they find something troubling - without being afraid of being reprimanded or so - my experience was the same: this was very, very helpful and fostered the trust even more. And what is more: the children (the three I'm talking about) also had a feeling that, if they did something I wouldn't "approve of", that they would be misusing my trust - this actually made my life way easier than anything else (they jut didn't want to disappoint me...)

Apart from the tone of your message, I agree only partially on the content.

I agree that the technology is not the solution.

But supervision, as you say, is also not a complete solution.

In my experience (father of a now adult daughter), the best was to explain, discuss and educate my daughter. When my daughter was around 6/7 years old, I slowly showed her to lookup stuff on the internet, where there are interesting things and als explained her about "dangerous" and "inappropriate" content there could be.

But what was mot important was trust - i.e. I explained her that I trust her fully not to misuse the freedom I was giving her, when, at around age of 8, I allowed her to access the internet on her own. I explained her, later, about the dangers of posting inappropriate content on the internet e.g. on Facebook, or other social networks and what consequences it might have for her now or in the future.

But I always made clear that the decision would be hers, that I would always be there for her if she found something discomforting or felt that she did something discomforting and that I would help her as much as I can. I made clear, though, that there certain things where even I can't help (full disclaimer, I have strong IT/Software/Internet background) - and that the best would be that should be careful.

When she started using Social Networks, she then friended me (not me her) asking whether I could let her know if she posts something that could have negative effect on her or her future.

This was the same approach with my nephew (he is 16 now) about 4 years ago and this is the same approach with my god-son: trust, education, and help - less so "control" or "supervision" - and the funny thing in the end was that all three of them asked for some supervision when they started using social networks, etc.

Lastly: I showed all of them where they can find really interesting content that could be fun as well as where they can learn things - but this required to first understand what they really liked and were interested in (Daughter: Science, Knitting; Nephew: Singing, Police-Work; God-Son: Minecraft, Minecraft-Mods, Software-development, Games-Dev).

I think there is a mismatch between "self-healing filesystem" and "recovering data".

The "self-healing filesystem" (as I understand in the case of ZFS) is that it makes sure that the filesystem itself is not corrupted, i.e. the *whole* system is automatically healed. This doesn't guarantee recoverability of any single file that might have been corrupted.

Fsck (UFS) usually helps you to (a) heal a corrupted filesystem and (b) helps you to (partially) recover lost data (in case of corrupted files).

ZFS, AFAIK, puts higher priority on maintaining the overall filesystem's consistency over the recoverability of a single file. UFS w/fsck doesn't self-heal, but provides you with a tool to help recover a single file if the overall filesystem is corrupted or a single file is corrupted.

I guess the question is what is more valuable: being able to recover a single file or having a self-healing filesystem that makes sure the the FS itself isn't corrupted.

BTW: I assume that the use of angry sentences like "don't be an ass" or "... when your blood runs thick with ZFS koolaid..." won't help your arguments to be taken as seriously as you hoped for... then again, who knows...

Working at an SMB, my experience is exactly this! I joined four months ago and am responsible (actually as a 'Chief Product Officer') to increase the quality, performance and usability of the products we are selling.

The problem is still understanding where all the problems come from - in the meantime I decided that it is mostly from extremely inexperienced (in CS concepts) Java developers as well as hundreds of tools, frameworks, new concepts that nobody has understood but which are "hype" and so on.

Instead of doing my Product Management job, I'm currently more involved in showing the developers where to find the bugs, problems and how to fix these...

Diets: you know what? I realized long time ago, that the right diet has the following ingredients:

1) A healthy mix of fresh vegetables (a lot), dairy products (some), and proteins (some meat, fish, eggs)2) It tastes good3) I really like eating it4) Lots of water to drinkOne should never underestimate the importance of (2) and (3) above...On top of that, you could add: 5) Exercise.... and its not even much. Walk to shopping, walk through a park/forest. Try not to use your car that often, try using the stairs instead of elevators, etc - you don't necessarily need a gym membership. Just walk more, drive less and it will already be a major step forward..

Then: lots of fresh fruit - and, every now an then: some "food for soul" (such as chocolate, chips, or whatever that is actually "unhealthy" - but I can use it as "soul food" every now and then and really, really enjoy also eating "unhealthy")

I'm 5'11", about 162 lbs and quite fit, though already in my 5th decade of live - I love to enjoy food, love cooking - but also like to "... just get a freakin' fatty cheeseburger..." from time to time. Never had a problem.

Long story short: all those diet recommendations in media is BS for me. Listen to your body, mix lots of fresh vegetables with some protein, dairy products and your fine. And as someone said, keep in mind the golden rule:

Energy in == Energy Out.

If you want to reach the expert level, keep in mind: Carbs are converted to fat in your body when your Energy Input is higher than your Energy Output.For the body, the order of burning its reserves are: 1) Carbs; 2) Fats; 3) Proteins

Proteins cannot be converted to fat, they can only be converted directly to energy. The more carbs & fats you eat, the fatter you get when your Input is higher than your Output. The fatter you get, the more Energy Input you need in order to just keep the weight, which creates a vicious cycle.(the last two paragraphs are for "Expert Level" dieting) - tongue in cheek...

Actually, the "herbal medicine" is NOT "alternative medicine". At least over here in Germany (and most of continental Europe) herbal medicine is a "classical medicine" segment called "Naturheilkunde", which could be translate back as "Medicine using natural ingredients" (i.e. natural grown) instead of "artificially created" ingredients (i.e. lab-generated ingredients).

"Naturheilkunde" is the segment of medicine looking at the healing effects of herbs, teas, fruits, etc. But it still, thankfully, uses scientific approach (Trial->Result->Replicate Result->Communicate; Trial by Third Parties->Replicate by Third Parties->Communicate).

Actually herbalist's (the traditional ones') approach was this:They either had heard from some other person that a specific herb worked successfully against a specific sickness, or they tried out herbs against certain ills to see if it worked.When they saw that it worked with one patient, they kept using it with other patients with the same ills or sicknesses. For example, daisy-flower tea was recommended against kidney-stones or to remedy it a bit or so.What the herbalists didn't know though was why it worked. For them, the only thing that counted was the result. If a given herb didn't work with a given illness, they tried a different herb or a combination of many herbs until they either gave up or they saw that it worked. Traditional herbalists (ages ago) actually only kept those herbs (and combinations) in their "portfolio" that reliable delivered the same results with the same/similar sicknesses. If they couldn't replicate the result, they dropped that herb (or combinations) from their "portfolio"...

Thus, the traditional herbalist were in fact using "scientific methods" without knowing that they were using them: Trial -> Result -> Try to Replicate Result -> Communicate to other Herbalists; The other herbalists again: Trial -> Result -> Replicate;

While growing up in a backwater-village in central Turkey in the 1970's, I learned much about herbs and "household remedies" (to reduce the impact of a common cold or to protect wounds becoming infectious, etc). For example: when you're wounded (e.g. while carving a stick or so) by a knife or anything that was not clean, the first thing to do (that I learnt) was to pee on the wound. Nobody knew why it worked, but they knew that that helped against infections... (well, after having gone to school, now I know why it worked...)

Today, I am happy to use "household remedies" (as long as they deliver, reliably, same/similar results for a given situation) as well as "School Medicine" (as it is called). But I would never think of trying to cure an infection with a tea - I'll prefer an anti-biotic, thank you very much (so far, there are no herbal solutions I am aware of against infections, but antibiotics are proven to work...) - in fact, anything that can be scientifically proven is fine with me - whether it herbs, medication, surgery, - I don't care as long as it is proven. And no, homeopathy, "Energy-whatever", or "holistic medicine" (what is it actually) is not my "cup of tea"... (no proof there)

The difference (for me) between scientific and non-scientific approach is very simple:1) Can you reliably reproduce the results under similar conditions but changing at least one parameter (for example with other patients)2) Can third parties reliably reproduce the results under similar conditions but changing at least one parameter (e.g. other patients)

If the answer to both is "YES", then, for heaven's sake use whatever means you come up with to help people. But if either you or other people can't reproduce it under similar conditions, chance is that the result was a "random fluctuation in space-time" and had nothing to do with your "(alternative) medical approach" (or any other approach).

Here in Germany, I pay for 100Mbps/20Mbps (Down-/Upstream) EUR 25 per month (at current exchange rate around 34 USD/month).

Well, at least the company selling the service offers the product as "100Mbps/20Mbps", but in fact when the technician came and connected it, we saw sync-speed of 100Mbps/31Mbps and his comment: "Yeah, we actually sell only what we can guarantee".

I have measured it many times, and it is really effectively 100Mbps/30 Mbps

While I was in the US from 2009 onward, I had the feeling that the US has the worst internet connection (to homes) of all the countries I spent time in (except emerging markets). And it was the most expensive I have seen so far.

But there is no question that public education's primary purpose is not for an individuals rote memorization of facts as much as developing civil minds for the preservation of our nation.

Yes, I fully agree with this statement, but fact is that in today's schools, it is rote learning and information cramming only. If the schools would prepare kids for life by educating them that learning is a great thing by itself, educate them to understand how they learn and teaching them to think for themselves, that would be a school-system I'd fully support.

The problem is that today's schools really teach kids how not to think for themselves, and how not to be analytical, questioning the status-quo, etc.

I'm all for learning some facts, i.e. information transfer. But let me ask you a simple question:Which school (or which teacher) tells the kids clearly during history-lessons that what we know about is history may not be the actual fact but only what some people, and in most cases only the victorious's, have written down?

History is taught in schools as if it was something "true" - while being known for most people that it is only what was written down mostly by the victorious party. It would be more prudent to teach kids: "Look, I'll tell you what we have discovered so far about history - but some things might have been quite different or opposite, so take it with a grain of salt..."

Same is true for everything else: In science, most of what the teachers are teaching they do so as "facts" instead of "... as far as we know so far..."

If we'd first teach kids how to think for themselves and actually encourage them to question especially their teachers, and then start teaching them "facts", the school-system would be probably significantly better for the society and we'd be developing the civil minds you are talking about. But, as said, currently we're just producing human resources for the economy - preferably human resources that don't think for themselves...

During the last 10+ years, I came to the conclusion that the worst things that happens to kids is going to school. I'm basically convinced now that the single-source of dumbing down kids is going to school.

The main reason for me is that kids don't learn really right things in school. They learn by the rote, for tests. There is a standard curriculum for all kids - one curriculum to rule them all. It is all based on tests (whether in the US, Europe, or elsewhere - it is the same everywhere).

I can't see any approach where:a) Kids learn how they learn bestb) Kids learn based on their strengths & preferencesc) Kids have fun learning and learn having fun learning

I'm afraid, the only thing we do in schools is try to created "standardized human resources" for the economy. There is no learning of "creative thinking", understanding how one learns best, what one's strengths are, etc.

Form many, many direct observations, I have seen kids being "tortured" with standardized curricula though these were kids with strong artistic senses, or strong scientific senses, etc. Why, on earth, does a kid who loves STEM and is really a high-flyer in STEM, need to do well in Arts, Sports, and other topics in order to continue school/high-school/college? Same is true for kids who love Arts, Sports, or so who are tortured with STEM?

If someone loves history, geography, social sciences and is really strong in it, why do they need to do all the other crap?

It is a convoluted situation: We actually teach kids in school how NOT TO think for themselves anymore, how NOT to be creative, how NOT to understand how they learn - we just cram information into them for 10+ years and test whether this information-cramming worked or not with all school-tests...

I have no solution, but at least I believe I have (partially) identified the problem (for me) - next step would be to really try to find solutions.

Caveat: Yes, I believe there are basic things that everybody should learn: reading, writing, basic math, basic history, basic geography - but this is something that can be done "on the side"...

Well, just the EUR 0.02 of a frustrated person - frustrated with the schooling system around the world (and no, I don't go to school anymore, I'm 45, but I also don't stop learning new things and am actually thinking about going to College - again...)

A good manager does:1) Define clear objectives (what to achieve);2) Define a "strategy" (how-to in general terms) to achieve it;3) Create the right team with the right, complimentary skill-sets to reach the objectives;4) Provide all the resources needed to the team so they can achieve the objectives;and the most important:5) Clear the path for the team to run towards the objective - on an ongoing basis - so that the team doesn't need to bother with anything like politics, bureaucracy, and other hindrances that would otherwise make it impossible for the team to achieve the objectives.

On a regular basis, the manager needs to do some "controlling', i.e. compare the team's achievements against the plan/objectives and either adjust the plan, the objectives, or the team/team's requirements. A manager who believes that the plan "is carved in stone" is a bad manager. A manager who believes that after implementing 1-4, everything will work out is a bad manager. A manager who believes that "... the team will work out the best solution and deliver as planned..." is a bad manager.

#5 above, i.e., making sure, on a daily basis, that the team's path is clear and that the team can run towards the objective (including changing team members if needed) is one of the core tasks.

If the manager masters these five tasks, he will be (more or less) invisible and the team will think that they didn't actually need him/her at all to achieve the objective... This is when I would call such a manager a "Master"...

Whether such a manager is technical or not doesn't matter - it might be helpful to be of technical/engineering background (so the manager can understand things better), but it might also be a hindrance to be of technical background (bias)...

In human history, there were many atrocities and every great empire/culture was built mostly on violence first and then became peaceful. That's what it is and that is our shared history as humans. Even China as of today is not a coherent culture.

There are a lot Mongol mixes, lots of Turc people (Uighurs), Tibetans, and may more. Many were conquered, some voluntarily joined the Middle Kingdom. So, what?

What counts is whether people are free today - wherever they are living. And in most places around the world, they are not, including, but not limited to, China. Our goal as humans should be to make sure that everybody on this planet can, at one point, have a decent, dignified and free life.